Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/50/2016

MR. BISWAJIT BORBORAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SRI JOGEN BORDOLOI

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT , DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT DIBRUGARH

C.C. Case No.50/2016

                        Present -

1. Shri Palash Ranjan Kotoky, President,
2.  Shri Jadav Gogoi, Member,
3.  Smti Nibedita Bose, Member,

       District Consumer Dispute Redressal  

       Commission, Dibrugarh.

 

Complainant -            Mr. Biswajit Borborah,

S/o Late Narendra Nath Borborah,

 Resident of Dhekerigaon, Banipur Bylane-3,

   P.O. Banipur, P.S. & District Dibrugarh, Assam.

 

                                                            -Vs-

 

1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Regd. Office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata.

 

2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Bhangagarh, Guwahati.

 

3. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Khemka Building, R.K. Bordoloi Path, Dibrugarh.

 

4. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Khemka Building, R.K. Bordoloi Path, Dibrugarh.

 

 

                                                                        Date of Argument –  29.01.2021

 

                                                                        Date of Judgment –  11.03.2022

 

            The C.C. has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant for directing the O.Ps. to release/sanction the actual cost of damage of insured building of the complainant which is submitted by the complainant on the basis of surveyor’s report appointed by the complainant himself and which was assessed at Rs.14,13,062/- and to direct the O.Ps. to pay 25% as compensation on the total estimate due to enhancement of price of materials and the cost of the case.

 

Judgement

 

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant’s residential house standing on a plot of land measuring 2K-10Ls covered by Dag No.46 under P.P. No.17 of Mankota Khanikar Mouza situated at Dhekerigaon, Banipur, Bylane -9, P.S and District Dibrugarh was constructed on the basis of duly approved plan of Dibrugarh Development Authority at a cost of Rs.21,33,816/- only. The said RCC residential building of the complainant was insured with M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch vide policy No.200301/48/15/3600000550, dtd. 24.09.2015 and under risk cover from 24.09.2015 to 23.09.2016. An earthquake occurred on 13.04.2016 with its epicenter in Myanmar border and in the said earthquake, the RCC structure insured building of the complainant was severely- damaged. The complainant contacted the O.P. No.4 for assessment of the damage portion of his building to claim compensation and the O.P. No.4 advised the complainant to prepare and submit a detail estimate of damage/loss due to the earthquake along with their prescribed claim format. As advised, the complainant engaged the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Mr. P. Duwarah for assessment of loss caused due to the earthquake occurred on 13.04.2016 of the insured building of the complainant. After spot verification, the surveyor prepared a detailed estimate of damage of the ground floor of the residential building of the complainant and assessed Rs.14,13,062/- as renovation cost. The complainant filed the prescribed format of claim along with estimate of loss and renovation claiming Rs.15,00,000/-  before the O.P. No.4 on 10.05.2016. On receipt of the said claim along with estimate, the O.P. No.4 deputed their own surveyor for assessment of loss in the insured residential building of the complainant and after inspection, the said surveyor submitted his estimate before the O.P. No.4 assessing the damage at Rs.1,35,132/- only  against the claimed cost of Rs.15,00,000/-. The complainant claims that the estimate of the surveyor of O.P.No.4 is concocted, baseless and no based on actual loss caused or damage and also hypothetical. On being aggrieved, the complainant vide his letter dtd. 03.10.2016 requested the O.P. No.3 to re-assess the said insured building and to enhance the compensation amount or with an option to construct the damaged portion of the insured building on their own supervision and control under O.P. No.3. But the O.P. No.3 intimated the complainant through O.P. No.4 vide their letter No.200301/A/C/SS/110/16, dtd. 13.10.2016 that they are fixed at their earlier decision. Through another letter No.200301/33/PD/Claim/114, dtd. 21.10.2016, the O.P. No.4 informed the complainant that his claim assessment is completed and requested him to submit some information to release his payment.

            To justify the legal and actual claim to renovate his insured building, the complainant directly communicated with O.P.No.3 over telephone and vide letter dtd. 27.10.2016 seeking his intervention in the matter. In reply, the O.P.No.3 vide their office letter No.200301/claim/2016/147, dtd. 02.11.2016 informed the complainant that claimed amount of compensation has been raised to Rs.1,52,544/- only. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the O.Ps., the complainant filed this complain before the Commission praying -

 

1. To release/sanction the actual cost of damage of insured building which was submitted by the complainant prepared by his appointed surveyor, Mr. P. Duwarah at Rs.14,13,062/- only.

 

2. To direct the O.Ps. to pay 25% as compensation on the total estimate due to enhancement of price of materials and

 

3. To pay the cost of the case.

 

            After registering the case, notices were served on all the O.Ps. They contested the case by filing written statements.

 

            By filing written statement, the O.P. No. 1,2 & 4 submitted that the case is not maintainable under law and facts and the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints as this is purely a civil dispute and ought to have been filed in the Civil Court. They claim that the complaint is bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of O.Ps. The O.Ps.  submitted that the complaint petition is barred as per provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the matter relates to quantum of settlement and as per provisions thereof, the matter should be referred to the sole Arbitration and as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant case as per clause 13 of

 

the General Condition of Fire Policy. It is admitted in their W/S by the O.Ps. that the complainant’s building and household goods were insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. in its Dibrugarh Branch on receipt of premium of Rs.2730/- covering risk against fire, shock, earthquake etc. under Fire Policy No.200301/148/16/36000005500 with validity from 24.09.2015 to midnight of 23.09.2016.

It is denied by the O.Ps. that the complainant contacted the OP No.4 for assessment of damage portions of the insured building to claim compensation and O.P. No.4 advised the complainant to prepare, and submit detail estimate of loss along with prescribed claim format as alleged.

            It is submitted on behalf of the O.Ps. that as per report of the Indian Meteorology Deptt. (National Centre for Seismology) of Govt. of India, the earthquake occurred on 13.04.2016 with its epicenter in Myanmar India Border with magnitude of 6.8 and the maximum seismic intensity, which could have been experienced at the epicenter due to this earthquake is likely to be about VII on the MMI scale. It is further submitted that as per the aforesaid report, the intensity due to the said earthquake in and around Banipur, Dibrugarh, Assam is likely to be about V on the (MMI) scale which reads as under -"Felt by nearly  everyone, many awakened. Some  dishes, windows and so on broken; plaster in a few places ; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.” It is also submitted that in the circumstance, the alleged damage to the complainant’s building was due to defective and soft construction.

            The O.Ps. claim that the report prepared by the surveyor Mr. P. Duwarah was not genuine, but concocted one prepared under the instruction of the complainant. They claim that Mr. Tilak Baruah, Surveyor and Loss Assessor (IRDA), Govt. of India registered ) appointed on behalf of the O.Ps for survey and to assess the loss, and the said surveyor inspected and verified the damaged portion of the building of the complainant and visited four times the house of the complainant and took photographs of the damaged portion and finally he assessed the loss at Rs.1,41,031.94 as per the APWD(Building) schedule for 2013-14. They alleged that the complainant tried to manipulate Mr. Tilak Baruah, the surveyor of the Insurer by offering him some percentage and thereafter brought false allegations against him that he did not visited the place of occurrence. But the complaint petition is silent in this regard. The O.Ps. vehemently submit that the complaint petition is filed to get unlawful advantage by making a whimsical claim from the O.Ps. and the claim is devoid of any merit therefore be dismissed.

In this case from the complainant side evidence of two witnesses were filed. CW-1 is the complainant Mr. Biswajit Borbarah himself and CW-2 is Mr. Tilak Baruah, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor and submitted 9 No. of documents marked as exhibit-1 to exhibit-9. On the other hand, the O.P. gave their evidence by swearing affidavit of one Shri Surajit Sonowal, the then Branch Manager of Dibrugarh Branch of National Insurance Company Ltd. and one Shri Tilak Baruah, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor and exhibited as many as 10 documents marked as exhibit –A to exhibit-K.

Decision and Reason thereof.

            On going through the evidence of the complainant it is found that the complainant’s residential RCC house standing over the plot of land measuring 2K-10Ls covered by Dag No.46 under P.P. No.17 of Mankata Khanikar Mouza situated at Dhekerigaon, Banipur Bylane-3, P.S. and District Dibrugarh was constructed as per the approved plan of Dibrugarh Development Authority vide their approval letter along with plan under reference No.DDA/TECH/BPO/101/2014/539, dtd. 08.09.2014 with a cost of Rs.21,33,816/- only based on the detailed estimate of Mr. P. Dowarah, Registered Designer. Exhibit-1(a) and 1(b) is the approved plan. Exhibit-2 is the approved estimate of cost of the ground floor. The complainant insured the building with National Insurance Company Ltd. at Dibrugarh Branch, code No.200301 vide policy No.200301/48/15/3600000550, dtd. 24.09.2015 and covered risk fron 24.09.2015 to 23.09.2016. Exhibit 3 is the policy of insurance. That an earthquake occurred on 13.04.2016 and as a result of which the RCC structured residential building of the complainant, insured with the O.P. was severely damaged. The complainant contacted the O.P.No4 for assessment of damage of the said building to claim compensation and the O.P. No.4 advised the complainant to prepare and submit detailed estimate of damages/losses caused by the earthquake along with prescribed claim format of the O.P. As advised, the complainant submitted on 10.05.2016 duly filled up prescribed claim format along with the report/estimate prepared by one Shri P. Duwarah, Regd. Designer appointed by the complainant for assessment of loss of his building in the said earthquake. The estimated cost of renovation shown by Mr. P. Duwarah was Rs.14,13,062/- only and the complainant claimed Rs.15,00,000/-only as compensation from the O.P. Exhibit 3(a) and Exhibit 3(b) are the claim petition and estimate for the renovation of the damaged building.

            On receipt of the claim petition from the complainant, the O.P. No.4 deputed their own surveyor for assessment of the loss caused by the earthquake and the said surveyor submitted his estimate before the O.P. No.4 after inspection estimating the damage caused by the earthquake at Rs.1,35,132/- only against Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The complainant alleged that the report and estimate of the surveyor of the O.P. No.4 is concocted, baseless and not based on actual loss caused or damage and also hypothetical.

            Being aggrieved, the complainant submitted a letter dtd. 03.10.2016 before the O.P. No.3 for re-assessment of the damaged portions of the building and for enhancement of compensation amount or with option to construct the damaged portions of the building at their own supervision and control directly under O.P. No.3. Exhibit-4 is the letter dtd. 03.10.2016 of the complainant. But the O.P. No. 3 vide their office letter under reference No.200301/A/C/SS/110/16, dtd. 13.10.2016 intimated the complainant that they are remaining fixed at their earlier decision. Exhibit-5 is the reply of the O.P. Through another letter under reference No.200301/33/PD/Claim/114, dtd. 21.10.16, the O.P. No.4 informed the complainant that his claim assessment is completed and requested him to submit some information to release his payment. Exhibit-6 is the copy of that letter and Exhibit-7 is the loss voucher.

            That to justify the legal and actual claim to renovate his insured building, the complainant directly contacted O.P. No.3 over telephone and letter dtd. 27.10.2016 seeking his intervention in the matter. In reply, the O.P. No.3 vide letter No.200301/Claim/2016/147, dtd 02.11.2016 informed the complainant that the claim

amount of compensation has been raised to Rs.1,52,544/- only. Exhibit-8 is the complainant’s letter dtd. 27.10.2016 addressed to O.P.No.3, Exhibit-9 is the copy of letter of the O.P. The complainant claim that this act of O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.4 is going to deprive the complainant from getting the legal and justified claim which was based on the estimate prepared on the basis of APWD(Building) schedule of rates for 2013-14. The complainant in para-15 of evidence of affidavit submitted that the para-15 of the W/S of O.P. “the alleged damage to the complainant’s building was due to defective and soft construction” is not true, the O.P. No.4 insured the building after spot verification including soil test and observing all required formalities prior to insuring the building. Denying the allegation levelled by the O.P. in para-17 of the W/S, the complainant submits that he submitted all the required clarifications as sought for by the official surveyor Mr. Tilak Baruah. Replying to para-18 of W/S of the O.P., the complainant submits in his evidence that the allegation levelled against him of trying to manipulate Mr. Tilak Baruah, the surveyor of the Insurer is totally false, baseless and the O.P. is put to strict proof of the same.

            CW-2 is the evidence of Mr.P. Duwarah in support of  the complaint of the complainant. In his evidence, CW-2 deposed that he prepared the estimate of damage caused in the building of the complainant due to the earthquake, dtd. 13.04.2016 and he was engaged by the complainant himself. He visited the damage residence of the complainant on 08,05.2016 and assessed in details of the loss caused for the same and prepared the estimate for renovation of the said building at a cost of Rs.14,13,362/- only, which was exhibited by the complainant as exhibit No.3(b) in his examination in chief. The estimate was prepared on the basis of APWD(Building) schedule of rates for the year 2013-14 which is exhibited as exhibit No.1. He claims that the estimate prepared by him on 10.05.2016 and exhibited as exhibit No.3(b) by the complainant is genuine, perfect, true and based on facts in the instant complaint.

            The O.P., National Insurance Company Ltd. has submitted evidence in affidavit of  (1) Shri Surajit Sonowal, the then Branch Manager of Dibrugarh Branch of NIC Ltd. And one (2) Shri Tilak Baruah, the appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Insurance Investigator.

O.P.W

            The O.P. No.1 Shri Surajit Sonowal in his evidence admits that the complainant’s building and household goods were insured with their company on receipt of premium of Rs.2730/-, covering risk against fire, shock, earthquake etc. under Fire Policy No.200301/48/16/3600000550 with validity from 24.09.2015 to midnight of 23.09.2016. He stated that as per the report of the Indian Meteorological Deptt. (National Centre for Seismology) of Govt. of India, the earthquake occurred on 13.04.2016 with its epicenter in Myanmar India Border with magnitude of 6.8 and the maximum seismic intensity, which could have been experienced at the epicenter due to this earthquake is likely to be about VII on the MMI scale. It is further submitted that as per the aforesaid report, the intensity due to the said earthquake in and around Banipur, Dibrugarh, Assam is likely to be about V on the (MMI) scale which reads as under -"Felt by nearly  everyone, many awakened. Some  dishes, windows and so on broken; plaster in a few places ; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees poles and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.” It is also submitted that in the circumstance, the alleged damage to the complainant’s building was due to defective and soft construction. Exhibit-A is the said report dtd.

17.08.2016. On receipt of the report of Shri P. Duwarah from the complainant, the Insurance Investigator, Shri Tilak Baruah was deputed by the O.P. for survey and to assess the loss and the said Investigator/Surveyor inspected and verified the owner’s damaged part of the building including all the rooms at ground floor in presence of the complainant and found some cracking of plaster in several parts of the wall and floor of the building. He further observed that the ground floor of the building was constructed in the year 2002 on loose and filling soil for which due to tremour, the insured plaster of the walls, floor, roofs etc. of the building got damage and said plaster require dismantling and repair.

            The Insurer’s Surveyor vide his Regd. a/d letter dtd.19.05.2016, 15.06.2016 and 07.09.2016 with copy to the NIC Ltd. requested the complainant to furnish the requisite documents which the complainant duly received but failed to furnish the same.  

                Ex. A is the report of the Indian Meteorological Deptt., Govt. of India.

Ex. B is the insurer’s  surveyor’s letter dated 19.05.2016.

            Ex.B(1) is the signature of Shri Tilak Baruah.

            Ex. C is the postal registration receipt thereof.

            Ex. D is the insurer’s surveyor’s letter dated 15.06.2016.

            Ex.D(1) is the signature of Shri Tilak Baruah.

            Ex. E is the postal registration receipt thereof.

            Ex. F is the insurer’s  surveyor’s letter dated 07.09.2016.

            Ex.F(1) is the signature of Shri Tilak Baruah.

            Ex. G is the postal registration receipt thereof.

            Ex. H is the surveyor’s report dtd. 26.09.2016.

            Ex. I is the 20 Nos. of photographs.

            As per evidence of O.P.W.-1, the Insurer’s Surveyor visited the house of the complainant for four times, took photographs of the damaged portion of the building and on the basis of his survey, observations and enquiry, assessed the loss at Rs.1,41,031.94/-. Exhibit-H is the Surveyor’s report dtd. 26.09.2016. Exhibit -H-1 is the signature of Shri Tilak Baruah, exhibit 1(series are) 20  Nos. of photographs. He claims that the alleged damage of the complainant’s building was due to defective and soft construction and there is no proof that the alleged damage was due  to earthquake. The complainant taking the advantage of earthquake filed this instant case for wrongful gain. It is also claimed in his evidence that the complainant tried to influence Mr. Tilak Baruah, the Surveyor of the Insurer by offering him some percentage and being failed in his attempt, the complainant filed allegation against Mr. Tilak Baruah that he did not visit the place of occurrence. Exhibit-J is the Surveyor’s reply letter dtd. 05.10.2016. Exhibit-1 is the signature of Shri Tilak Baruah. According to him, the complainant planned to get unlawful advantage by making whimsical claim from the O.P. The claim of the complainant is not legal and valid and against the public policy and false and vexatious. He denied that the complainant contacted the O.P. No.4 for assessment of damaged portion of the insured building of the complainant and the O.P. No.4 advised the complainant to prepare and submit a detailed estimate of damage along with their prescribed claim format, as alleged in para-5 of the evidence in affidavit of CW-1.  “as per advice of the O.P.No.4, the complainant engaged the surveyor/designer Mr. P. Duwarah” contained in para-6 of the evidence in chief of the CW-1. In reply to para-9 of the evidence in chief of CW-1, the O.P.W.-1 submitted that there is no post of Divisional Manager in Dibrugarh. As per his evidence, the

compensation amount of Rs.1,52,544/- only after re-assessment by the NIC Ltd. is justified and based on actual damage caused by the earthquake. It is submitted by the OPW-1 in his evidence of affidavit that there is no post like Divisional Manager. The complainant in collation with Mr. P. Duwarah obtained the manipulated report for his own wrongful gain for causing wrongful loss to the O.P. and the said report was not genuine as it was estimated for renovation but not for repair and the said report is concocted one prepared by Mr.P. Duwarah as per the instruction of the complainant and according to the calculation as desired by the complainant and not based on actual damage. He claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

            The O.P.W-2 is Shri Tilak Baruah, the Surveyor and Loss Assessor deputed by the OP for investigation and assessment of the loss of damaged building of the complainant caused by the earthquake. In his evidence in affidavit, he stated that he visited the damaged insured building of the complainant for four times and observed the damaged portion of the building on ground floor in presence of the complainant and found some cracking of plasters in several parts of the wall and floor of the building and the ground floor of the building was constructed in the year 2002 on a loose and filling soil for which due to tremour, the plasters of the wall, floor, roof etc. of the building got damage and requires dismantling and repairing. He alleged that during his assessment, he got no cooperation from the complainant. In his evidence in affidavit, the OPW-2 stated that the complainant tried to make him influenced to give the assessment report according to his calculation and offered him some percentage, which he stoutly refused and warned him for which he brought false allegation against OPW-2 that he has not visited the place of occurrence. According to him, the alleged damage to the building was due to defective and soft construction and there is no proof that the alleged damage was caused by earthquake. As many as 17 documents were exhibited in support of the evidence of OPW-1 and OPW-2.

            Both the parties submitted their written arguments which are carefully examined during preparation of judgment.

Points to be decided

1. Whether the residential building of the complainant was insured with the O.P.
2. Whether there occurred any earthquake on 13.04.2016 as alleged by the complainant.
3. Whether the ground floor of the residential house of the complainant was damaged as a result of that earthquake.
4. Whether the claim of the complainant claiming Rs. 15,00,000/-only as compensation is genuine.
5. Whether the survey report submitted by the appointed surveyor of the O.P. is just and proper.
6. Whether the quantum of compensation based on the assessment of Mr. P. Dowarah, the surveyor appointed by the complainant himself is a reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded to the complainant.

Points decided

The fact that the -

1. The damaged building of the complainant, which is the subject matter of this complaint was duly insured with the O.P., National Insurance Company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch vide policy No.200301/48/16/3600000550 with validity from 24.09.2015 to the midnight of 23.09.2016 is not disputed by the O.P.

 

2. It is also an admitted fact that an earthquake took place on 13.04.2016 at 7:20 P.M. But as per report of the Asstt. Meteorologist for Director, National Centre for Seismology, it is seen that an earthquake with preliminary hypocentral parameter occurred on 13.04.2016 with its epicenter in Myanmar India Border region with magnitude of 6.8. They quoted that no earthquake with its epicenter in and around Banipur, District Dibrugarh, Assam have been recorded on 13.04.2016 at 7.20 P.M. as per National Network of that Center.

As per that report, the maximum intensity, which could have been experienced at the epicenter due to this earthquake is likely to be about vii on the MMI scale.

Empirically, the intensity due to this earthquake in and around Banipur, District Dibrugarh, Assam is likely to be v on MMI scale.

Seismic intensity of an earthquake is expected to be maximum at the epicenter and decreases with the distance from the epicenter. It also depends upon the geology and soil condition of the concerned area. As per their description of earthquake effects in the intensity of MMI v is “felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows and so on broken; cracked plasters in a few places; unstable objects overturned. Disturbance of trees, poles, other tall objects sometimes noticed; pendulum clock may stopped.”

3.  From the observation, it is seen that the damage caused to the residential insured building of the complainant is caused by earthquake is not disputed, but the quantum of losses shown in the loss assessment report of Mr. P. Dowarah is disputed by the O.P.

 

4. Keeping in view of the report of the National Center for Seismology, it is hard to believe atonce the quantum of loss assessment prepared by Mr. P. Dowarah. There is a vast difference in between the quantum of assessment done by both party’s surveyors. The appointed surveyor of the O.P. assessed the loss at Rs.1,41,031.94 only and on the other hand, the surveyor/loss assessor appointed by the complainant is Rs.14.13.062 only. Based on the report of the National Centre for Seismology we may come to a conclusion that though there occurred an earthquake on 13.04.2016 at 7.20 P.M., the intensity whereof was MMI V only that earthquake was not a devastating one to cause damage to the residential house of the complainant as assessed by his own appointed surveyor/loss assessor.

 

5. We find no reason to disbelieve the quantum of assessment of loss assessed by the surveyor of the isurer O.P. The complainant has failed to prove his allegation against the surveyor of the insurer that he never visited the damaged

 

residential house of the complainant before preparing the assessment of loss. The photographs submitted by the surveyor and exhibited as Ext. I by the O.P. speak otherwise.

 

6. From all those observations this commission finds it quite difficult to accept the quantum of assessment as prepared by the surveyor appointed by the complainant.

 

6698606.  

After going through the complaint filed by the complainant and after careful perusal of W/Ss of O.Ps and after minutes scrutiny of the evidences and exhibits led by both the parties, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove the acts of deficiency and negligence of services on the part of the O.P. in settlement of the claim of the complainant. The quantum of assessment of loss/damage suffered by the complainant as assessed by the appointed surveyor of the O.P. cannot be regarded as not based on actual loss or concocted or hypothetical. This Commission finds nothing to interfere with the amount of loss/damage as settled by the O.P. as per their surveyor’s report. We found no reason to award any compensation as claimed by the complainant.

With above observations, this Commission doth orders the O.P., National Insurance Company Ltd., Dibrugarh Branch to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,52,544/- (Rupees one lakh fifty two thousand five hundred forty four)only as settled by them against the earthquake caused loss of the complainant. The O.P. is directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within one month from the date of judgement through this Commission failing which 10% interest on the amount will have to be paid from the date of judgment till payment of the same.

The consumer complaint No.50/2016 is accordingly disposed of on contest.

Send a copy of this judgment to the O.P. for compliance.

 

 

Jadav Gogoi                                                                Palash Ranjan Kotoky,

Member                                                                       President,

District Consumer Dispute                                         District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Commission,                                               Redressal Commission,

Dibrugarh                                                                    Dibrugarh

 

 

 

 

Nibedita Bose

Member

District Consumer Dispute

Redressal Commission,

Dibrugarh